I think atheist expect perfection in the west while nobody is arguing perfection.None of us are perfect and sinnless but to ignore what atheists have done when they are in power while nitpicking the west is not rational,logical or smart and I don't see how so many of you were duped by atheists of todays talking points.It does not phase me one-bit because it is just a biased and brain dead opinion.

If I was an atheist?I would know it is BS and there are a a lot of atheists that do.Most atheists in the world do not promote atheism and they live there life like the rest of us do,they just don't believe in a God.I know the new atheist movement doesn't want to admit it,but its true.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think atheist expect perfection in the west while nobody is arguing perfection.None of us are perfect and sinnless but to ignore what atheists have done when they are in power while nitpicking the west is not rational,logical or smart and I don't see how so many of you were duped by atheists of todays talking points.It does not phase me one-bit because it is just a biased and brain dead opinion.

If I was an atheist?I would know it is BS and there are a a lot of atheists that do.Most atheists in the world do not promote atheism and they live there life like the rest of us do,they just don't believe in a God.I know the new atheist movement doesn't want to admit it,but its true.

But you are an atheist. You reject all other god claims and stories other than your own. You try to claim that we borrow from god to judge what is right or wrong is ridiculous on an enormous scale. I'd be more than willing to wager you didn't watch any of the videos Inferno posted.

The only thing that truly separates people is the standard of education, and how much they are willing to discover about the world as a whole. Some people go a step further and try to expand the knowledge of humanity by looking up at the stars and trying to figure out every question that comes to their minds. To think that all of this information was handed down to us thousands of years ago is a bold and silly notion, and that can and has been proven.

Way to derail another thread.

Back on topic.

When it comes to the dangers of inbreeding, the majority if not all come from physical defects due to the lack of genetic diversity between the parents. Those generally happen within several generations of continual inbreeding, not from a single instance (although you increase the chance of congenital diseases or issues if they are prevalent already ie: heart disease). Generally the defects are small and start to add up over time.

There are lot's of examples to look at in the animal kingdom (cheetahs come to mind) and the Royal families trying to keep the bloodlines pure in the past.

As for it's role in society, it doesn't really have much to say. If you look it up on the internet, you will find fantasy sites and or even forums that discuss it. It's out there and no one is condemning it, or outlawing the mention of it, so who is it harming. - regarding the consensual act and or fantasy.

What does religion have to say about it? As far as I know, the old testament in it's amazing list of 600+ laws it says who should not sleep with who but doesn't say why? So is it wrong because god says so? Bullshit. We know due to science why it should not be a goal to procreate with your own family, not god's decrees.

Is it a moral issue? What the fuck religion and god have to do with morals?

So your you ACB, start bringing something to the table or maybe admit you are not correct. So far all you've done is regurgitate the same thing over and over again all the while showing how little you know about what you try to chime in on.

"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne

abelcainsbrother wrote:Sorry but atheists have nothing to draw from to say what is right or wrong.

Actually, atheists have the basis to go well beyond such digital concepts as right and wrong. You, it seems, have not. That's one of the problems with mistaking rules for morality.

Here's a thought for you, though. If your basis for morality doesn't exist, then you have no basis for morality. The atheist, on the other hand, actually understands what morality is, while you do not.

Of course, you can defeat this line simply by telling us what morality is. You'll forgive me, I hope, if I allow respiration to continue operating within normal parameters in the interim.

But they borrow from God and the bible in order to do it.

Yes, except no. You really think that god or the bible is the source of the rules therein? Somebody once pointed out that it would have been difficult for the Israelites to actually make it to Sinai without some conception of what it took to be a socially cohesive society (setting aside the fact that the Exodus never happened, of course). Such a large group of people couldn't have survived the journey without some moral framework. Since the Hokey Blurble itself has these people existing prior to their being given the holy paving slabs, not to mention having come from a society that also had moral strictures, despite not even being adherents of your preposterous cosmic curtain-twitcher.

But you cannot borrow from a God you don't believe in

Good job I don't then.

but every time they do they prove Romans true where it tells us God wrote his laws on every person's hearts and this is where atheists decide what is right or wrong.

Ah, so naïve. Right? Wrong? You really think it's that simple? Again, that's what happens when you mistake rules for morality.

abelcainsbrother wrote:The truth hurts.I did not say atheists can't sin or kill,or can't do good,we all can but we all have sinned but that is the whole reason for Jesus who died and rose again to save sinners.Atheists have nothing to draw from yet they draw from God all the time when they judge Christians.It is a logical fallacy.

Speaking of logical fallacies, this one's known as 'begging the question'. The particular question being begged resides in your conception of 'sin'. I can't sin if your magic man doesn't exist. Guess what?

You should also go and find out what a logical fallacy actually is, because you haven't the foggiest. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. Even were it true that we borrowed from the rules in the bible (we don't), that wouldn't constitute a logical fallacy, it would merely constitute a recognition that a particular rule was a good thing.

Me, I'm beyond such naïve bollocks as 'rules', preferring to reason the best course of action in a given situation, because guess what? What consti8tutes the right course of action will change dependent on the circumstances.

Just as an example, and to see if you're actually capable of learning anything (colour me skeptical on this point), do you think it's always wrong to lie?

abelcainsbrother wrote:That is your angry opinion but I saw and watched how Christianity corrected things in our society like slavery.

Christianity did no such thing, people did that. If you really do your research, you'll find that many of the justifications used to fight the abolition were taken directly from your book of drivel. If your religion were actually against slavery, we wouldn't find mandated slavery in your book of fatuous nonsense, and we certainly wouldn't find strictures on the treatment of slaves in your laws. That we find such mandates and strictures exposes your argument for the ignorant fucking arse-gravy it is.

Also stop whitewashing the 20th century where atheist rulers slaughtered far more and terrorized for more human lives and than all Christian wars combined and Christian societies.

Really? Have you got some numbers? I'd be interested to see if you actually understand the material. I'm betting you don't, because the situation is far more nuanced than your tiny mind appears capable of. That sounds an awful lot like the usual regurgitated bollocks we hear from apologists who don't have a complete grasp of modern history. I bet, for example, that you're including the holocaust in your figures, which would definitely be an error.

Either way, none of what you're talking about is a consequence of atheism, but usually stems from something else, such as in the case of Stalin, whose depredations were about ensuring his complete command, and arose from doctrinal imperatives not unlike those we find in your silly mythology. I've said often in the past that it isn't religion in and of itself that's the problem, it's blind adherence to doctrinal imperatives, of which religion is merely a subset, albeit the noisiest and most ubiquitous.

When atheists are in power a slaughterhouse is what you get.

Shall we ask the people of Cuba if they agree with you?

You don't have freedom and you are indoctrinated and held back.

Hahahahaha! This from the one promulgating religion. Do y7ou think you're this stupid because your religion freed you?

You cannot draw from God to judge Christians like you are doing,because you have nothing to draw from to know what is right or wrong.

Actually, we can judge god and his followers by their own standards, not least in that bit about not killing and then committing genocide on several nations.

You cannot borrow morality from God you don't believe in.

This isn't actually true, but it's also entirely beside the point, because god hasn't got any morality (setting aside the fact that this absurd entity doesn't actually exist). You're still mistaking rules for morality. They aren't.

Christians have a right to stand up for morality though and to stand against sin.

Circular. You really need to learn some stuff about logic.

Christians care for gay people far more than the people agging them on do and homosexuality leads to death of a society even if you don't think its wrong.

And, of course, you can provide evidence supporting this contention, can't you?

Didn't think so.

Gay people have short life spans because of diseases and yet people like you don't seem to care.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Look at everybody whitewashing what atheists do and making excuses,they want to explain away what atheist leaders have done

Not at all. Those people did what they did. The point is that their atheism is irrelevant to that.

yet condemn Christian societies that gave them the freedom to choose their path in life.It seems atheists want the freedoms Christianity gave them but not the God that gave them freedom in the west.

Several things wrong here. I don't condemn christian societies, I condemn christianity, along with all other really shitty ideas. I have no problem with christians. I know some delightful christians (and some pretty awful atheists). However, when we compare them side by side, atheism and christianity, we see some interesting things. The first to note is that all the shitty stuff, such as slavery, genocide, etc, is right there in the holy book. There is a logical route between the religion itself and the behaviours which we would condemn,. When we look at atheism, there is no doctrine, and no logical route between atheism and the behaviour, so we have to look elsewhere for the source, because clearly, atheism isn't it. That's what you're seeing here and describing as 'whitewashing'. Yes, some people have behaved badly. Their justifications for their behaviours come from various sources, such as political ideologies, religious texts, economic models, etc.

Coming back for a moment to logical fallacies, allow me to educate you, because you're committing a massive one here, namely post hoc ergo propter hoc (after, therefore because of). You're drawing a line between somebody being an atheist and their behaviour. Inn the case of, for example, Stalin, yes, he was an atheist. He was also an adherent to Marxist ideology (or at least a bastardised version thereof of his own devising). Now, not all atheists are Marxists (or Stalinists), so you can't say that Stalinism is a result of atheism, but we can say that the pogroms are a direct result of Stalinism. Therefore, your contention that atheism leads to genocide is fucked.

On the other hand, there are several instances of genocide in your idiotic book, condoned and actively encourage by your silly magic man, so we can draw a clear logical route between one and the other.

hackenslash wrote:Coming back for a moment to logical fallacies, allow me to educate you, because you're committing a massive one here, namely post hoc ergo propter hoc (after, therefore because of). You're drawing a line between somebody being an atheist and their behaviour. Inn the case of, for example, Stalin, yes, he was an atheist. He was also an adherent to Marxist ideology (or at least a bastardised version thereof of his own devising). Now, not all atheists are Marxists (or Stalinists), so you can't say that Stalinism is a result of atheism, but we can say that the pogroms are a direct result of Stalinism. Therefore, your contention that atheism leads to genocide is fucked.

On the other hand, there are several instances of genocide in your idiotic book, condoned and actively encourage by your silly magic man, so we can draw a clear logical route between one and the other.

Sexual relations between parents and children and between young siblings are very problematic. Power plays, levels of immaturity and general betrayals of trust arise and cause emotional harms. So taboos here are healthy.

Once siblings have matured they generally carry those taboos into adulthood which is probably a good thing as it avoids inbreeding over time.

I don't think sexual relations between adult siblings is immoral however, just generally unlikely and not so good if children get created.

DanDare wrote:Sexual relations between parents and children and between young siblings are very problematic. Power plays, levels of immaturity and general betrayals of trust arise and cause emotional harms. So taboos here are healthy.

Once siblings have matured they generally carry those taboos into adulthood which is probably a good thing as it avoids inbreeding over time.

I don't think sexual relations between adult siblings is immoral however, just generally unlikely and not so good if children get created.

I asked my tutor about this in uni.And he said basically the same.No, not inherently bad, but so fraught with danger, power imbalances and stuff as to be pretty close.

How do you check to make sure a parent is not exerting some form of coercion on a child to enter into a sexual relationship?Ditto siblings.

On the one hand, whatever consenting adults want to do is fine by me.But on the other hand, grooming/power dynamics/emotional drama etc.